Bomook

actually, I don't think the money was floating around that abundantly. Most people who were throwing the money around took advantage of bugs and such to get millions, which is why they didn't care, since they didn't actually earn it. This is also why I'm in favor of an account reset after the new things are implemented. I think (as of now) this hangar stuff isn't necessary at all. Having the reloads would also mean that ships will no longer recharge energy. Also, it will reduce the javelin's m!@#$%^&*-bombing, but it will affect all other ships similarly, especially bullet-sprayers. Charging money on all ammunition is going overboard too (charging some money for bombs is all that's really necessary, in my opinion).

eh, that was you? ah yes, I was about to kick you for like 10 minutes, but then things became quite amusing after I set a macro for ":Death-Be-My-Foot:*shutup" *shutup Death-Be-My-Foot has left the arena Death-Be-My-Foot has entered the arena Death-Be-M> that game sucks! *shutup Death-Be-My-Foot has left the arena Death-Be-My-Foot has entered the arena Death-Be-M> that game sucks! *shutup that occured every second maybe

...haven't grants always been this way?

well, ASSS has more benefits than just saving the staff work in restarting bots. It also does not have the bot-!@#$%^&*ociated lag that there used to be, there is more customization for settings, plus without the need for staff to restart the bots, many public arenas will be able to be up at the same time, ultimately increasing the capacity of the zone.

The biggest flood of people will occur when the new changes are added. At that point, the new people'll make their own squads (and maybe the old ones like Hunta or Striderz will revive).

I like the idea of having the bomb cost increase as it is upgraded more. each shrapnel or bomb level upgrade adds $2 to each bomb's cost the whole thing is multiplied by 1.5 if the bombs bounce (i.e. javelin) so getting blue bombs with level 5 shrapnel will cost $48 per bomb [ 1.5 * (20+10+2) ]. I think this would be a good counterbalance since most maxed javs don't make any more than $50 per kill anyways. I still don't like the hangar idea, though. lowering the amount of money made per kill is enough, imo. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be done. I've played many games that started out very fun, but over time had so many "balancing" implementations that they became management nightmares (too many things had to be taken into account when doing even the most basic actions), taking out the basic enjoyment, and at the same time lowering the population driving both bored veterans and newbies (who can't understand everything) away. I'm not really for having bullets cost money to fire. With the current settings, most of the bullet-firing ships are made to spray. I think making bullets cost money would too radically change the gameplay with these ships. Higher levels bullets don't do much, nor does multifire. Making bouncing bullets cost more (about $10K) is probably all that really needs to be done.

I don't know... yes, having a maintenance cost will make things slightly more equal, as veterans will have a harder time. On the other hand, I don't think newbies will like this either, since it's still going to cost them money. (It's kinda like tax hikes today. The government spends the taxes equally for all people, and though the rich suffer from them much more, the poor still complain because they are unwilling to part with the little money that they do have.) I think a reduction in gains (as opposed to flat-out penalty or cost) is better. How about several multiple-ship kill formulas? money = [70-(number of ships owned * 5)] * [(enemy bounty + 5) / (your bounty + 5)] this way, in terms of the current kill formula, newbies still technically aren't negatively affected, while in-between newbies/veterans are slightly benefited. Finally the 1337 veterans (especially those with 7 ships) will be harmed by this formula (they will make 30% less money from kills). Finally, bullets should be free, while bombs and mines should be payed on a per unit basis. I can think of 2 ways of implementing this (although whether or not they're possible to do is questionable ) Paying a fee of say, $1000, 50 bombs/mines will be "added" to that ship. If someone has less than 50 bombs/mines but isn't completely empty, he can buy more bombs/mines, but it will bring him to exactly 50 bombs/mines again (example: someone buys bombs/mines, he now has 50 bombs/bombs, he shoots 1 bomb; now he has 49 bombs/mines, but he buys bombs/mines again, he is back at 50 bombs/bombs). The reason this should be done is so that people can't just buy like a thousand bombs/mines at one time, essentially destroying the purpose of this. Every time a bomb is fired or a mine is layed, $20 is deducted. If the person has less than $20, then bombs will be temporarily unprized. Hopefully, this will make bullet-based ships more useful and prolific (decent performance, low maintenance required), whereas bombers will be more specialized (high performance, high maintenance).

Even if people get that rich, if the exponential upgrade cost curve was introduced, then instead of just maxing all of their ships and buying supers and flashbangs, they'd be able to put the money into their ships. a high cost for ships is a good idea , though your values are way too high. !@#$%^&*uming all of the ships were balanced, ships 5 and 6 should cost at a most $200K. And the same goes for Ship 7. No one has even earned $10 million yet. If the capship cost too much, then newbies wouldn't be able to flag (causing 2 problems: complaining, and no compe!@#$%^&*ion for those who are flagging). Making ship costs dramatically higher makes the ship cost no longer negligible, so people will have to think about which ship they ultimately want, and find a way to earn that money.

Yeah, having a tax on transferring money probably does create more problems than it'll solve. People will avert giving money because of the tax, and few player-run events will continue to exist (many of them were fun ). Also, giving money to help out newbies will probably stop, and they will feel discouraged. People will also stop loaning each other money. Although, I can't really think of any other way to stop trade-killing and such, I'm now decided that a big money transfer tax is not a good solution.

actually, I really like your ideas of catapults (jump gates) and jump engine going into hyperspace. Instead of just modified folding, modified catapults, and modified warping, I think the current warp methods should be divided into 4 types. Regular catapult (same as normal catapult, but brings the user into the hypertunnels) Regular folding a.k.a. warping (exactly the same as normal warping, with energy depletion and a short delay time) Super catapult (same as current catapult, allows warping directly into desired sector) Super folding (same thing as modified folding, which is just folding but with a delay time) The thing I liked most is that many people will now actually be in the hypertunnels. Hyper-fighting will be the new thing!

I honestly think an exponential cost curve is good idea: Hypothetically, no one will have every upgrade. (using a fixed 1000*1.21^x formula) Having 5 upgrades will cost $7,590 ($2,590 difference from the current cost) Having 10 upgrades will cost $27,274 ($17,274 difference from the current cost) Having 15 upgrades will cost $78,331 ($13,331 difference from the current cost) Having 20 upgrades will cost $210,759 ($9,241 difference from the current cost) Having 25 upgrades will cost $554,242 Having 30 upgrades will cost $1,445,150 Having 35 upgrades will cost $3,754,937 (it took me over 3 months to make this much, so actually having 35 upgrades on a single ship will be almost impossible) Having 40 upgrades will cost $9,749,524 (for those of you who think you can get more than 35 ) the cost difference between our current system and the proposed system aren't too big. it would benefit both newbies and veterans Newbies, after buying 10 upgrades, hit a "plateau", in terms of their ship performance. After a period of time when the player can afford an enhancer, his ship's performance will begin increasing again, and after buying 20 upgrades, hit a peak. The ship performance and cost increase rises unsteadily, making things difficult for newbies who aren't prepared. With the new system, newbies will see a much smaller cost (e.g. the 15th upgrade with the new system will actually cost $17,450. This is much less traumatic to look at than a big $50,000 for an enhancer), which will rise steadily, so it will be pretty easy to adjust to. Veterans, generally after buying the 10slot, move onto another ship. After maxing every ship, some people get bored and just leave, since there is nothing really good left to buy. Having an exponential cost curve would technically give veterans as many upgrades they want. Also, even for newbies, if someone really wanted an extra upgrade, he could save up and eventually buy it. In this way, the system is quite flexible. It will require more careful, complex planning, too, since even one upgrade will profoundly affect the cost of all of the others. Most RPGs use an exponential exp. curve. Upgrades most nearly represent levels, so using an exponential cost curve for upgrades is reasonable. An actual example of the success of the proposed system is a current browser game that actually uses a system very similar to the it is TDZK, which currently has about 3000 players, (which is a lot considering the last time I played, over a year ago, the game had about half that population). Even newbies don't seem to find the exponential system they have as overly complex. The at!@#$%^&*ude in TDZK (even among wealthy veterans) values money (they can't simply just buy an unstoppable ship) and careful upgrade combinations. on the other hand, I realize the change is very radical (although it's been tested, so it's unlikely to fail), and quite complex, but otherwise, I don't really see any cons. I think as long as there is a buy message saying "You have purchased 1 [ugprade type] for $[amount payed]. Your next ugprade will cost $[upgrade cost]." then people (even newbies) will be able to adapt or get used this the system much more easily. Ultimately, the new system will make newbies have an easier time getting started, and will keep veterans attached as well.

modified folding same as normal folding except that there is a delay (an engines shutdown lasting a few seconds) after arriving in the destination sector. This will make constantly folding to lose pursuers more difficult. Flux Energy Reactive Regression Electric Transporter a.k.a. modified catapult same as a normal catapult except that there will be a small safety zone in the middle of each catapult (to prevent catapult mining) modified warping same as normal warping (warping into the hypertunnels) except that there will be no energy depletion. Transdimensional hub there will be a physical "hub" located in a convenient, accessible place in the center sector. By paying some money, the hub can be activated for about 5 minutes. When activated, the hub will act as a permanent space fold, warping all freqmates who enter to go to the desired sector at no cost of energy. M!@#$%^&* Portal After buying the ability to lay these, if someone goes somewhere, he can type "?drop" or something like that, then type "?portal" to warp all nearby freqmates to the location of the "?drop". If the ship laying the m!@#$%^&* portal is killed, then the "?drop" location is deleted. This would be interesting, having an infiltrator ship get somewhere inside the enemy base, lay a m!@#$%^&* portal, leave, and then get together with some friendly, heavier, and stronger ships, return to the portal, and give the enemy some -*BAD WORD*- kicking. Guild Troop Transports After paying a fee to hire a troop transport (which must be done at an Area Store, one transport at a time per person), a "bot" will appear in a capship and follow the buyer. The "bot" will warp with the buyer (e.g. if the buyer catapults, the "bot" will follow and catapult to the same sector as the buyer). Finally after arriving at the destination, the buyer can pm the "bot" with a "?stop" command or something like that and the "bot" will cease to follow. If the transport is killed, another one must be hired. This will be very useful in getting a capship to mindlessly sit in your flag room.

I don't think the old posts are up anymore Here's a quick reiteration of the most basic exponential cost curve idea: an upgrade's cost = 1000 * 1.21 ^ (number of upgrades) the maximum amount of upgrades per category is 10 instead of 5. for the less mathematically able: the more upgrades you have, the more expensive they get. This is just like an experience curve in most role-playing games. supplemental idea: The otherwise maximum amount of one type of upgrade is 5. Enhancers are now used to increase the maximum amount of one type of upgrade rather than the total amount of upgrades (which are now technically unlimited). Enhancers are purchased as upgrades. As such, they increase the "number of upgrades" counter. Directly, this makes no immediate change on the price; however, enhancers have a profound effect on the future cost of all upgrades, since the curve is exponential. supplemental idea: add 1000*1.5 ^ (number of same type of upgrade) into the main upgrade cost formula. Enhancers will be eliminated. All this addition does is make it more expensive to have more of the same type of upgrade. Unlike the enhancer idea listed above, having more of the same type of upgrade will not affect the cost of other upgrades. The experience idea sounds good. It will also be an excellent way to prevent everyone from simply using the best ship (a.k.a. the lame ship). As long as it doesn't become too complex, this system is good. The warp drive is intriguing. How about having a "m!@#$%^&* portal"? If someone goes somewhere, he can type "?drop" or something like that, then type "?portal" to warp all nearby freqmates to the location of the "?drop". If the ship laying the m!@#$%^&* portal is killed, then the "?drop" location is deleted. This would be interesting, having an infiltrator ship get somewhere inside the enemy base, lay a m!@#$%^&* portal, leave, and then get together with some friendly, heavier, and stronger ships, return to the portal, and give the enemy some -*BAD WORD*- kicking. A problem with this (aside from the complexity), however, is that it can be abused to constantly warp around everywhere. below are adjustments to currently existing features: balancing upgrade effectiveness: problem: from what it seems right now, a ship's maximum ability in a field is a multiple of its initial abilities. Example (nb: values are estimates), A warbird's initial thrust is 20, and its maximum thrust is a multiple of that, 40. Each thrust upgrade increases the thrusters by 4. A terrier's initial thrust is 10, and its maximum is a multiple of that, 20. Each thrust upgrade only increases the thrust by 2. Therefore it is more favorable to buy thrust and speed upgrades on an inherently faster ship (warbird), while it is more favorable to buy energy and recharge on an inherently stronger ship (terrier). This, to an extent, dictates which upgrades people get. solution: make the upgrade factor the same for all ships. So, for example, have a thruster upgrade increase thrusters by 3 for all ships. This will make all upgrades have the same effect on all ships. pros: ships are more customizable. There will no longer be a "best combination of upgrades" for ships. cons: the "role" of the different ships are less defined as they can now be practically upgraded for any use. fix flashbangs: problem: flashbangs are too inexpensive, and immediate activation upon purchase eliminates almost all practical uses for them. People can easily abuse this by continuously buying flashbangs. solution: make flashbangs be purchased and then "stored" on a ship, just like reloads. Each ship can hold at most one flashbang. Typing "?flash" or something like that will release the flashbang, blinding everyone. With this increased use, it should naturally be more expensive. Costing 50K rather than 15K is reasonable, as flashbangs will probably be invaluable in base warfare. pros: flashbangs have a practical purpose. flashbangs are harder to abuse because of the higher cost (a continuous loss of $15K can be negligible, while a continuous loss of $50K will not be) cons: I suppose if someone has a lot of money to blow they can still abuse... adjusting bounty increases for ship components: problem: certain ship components (namely upgrades and specials) provide a lot of performance for very little money. The savvy know this. Newbies do not. A newbie may spend a lot of money for a low-performance ship, while someone perceptive can spend much less money for a high-performance ship. This causes difficulty for newbies. solution: for each upgrade or special, prize a "full charge" to increase the bounty of the ship. pros: newbies have an easier time. Low-cost, high-performance ships yield less money when killing other ships, but are worth more money to be killed. cons: I can't think of any taxing money gifts: problem: too easily can the rich just give money to newbies who then simply take the money and buy everything. Also, it becomes too easy to "transfer" money between accounts making tradekilling a very easy thing to do. solution: have a 25-50% "?give" tax. Example: if I give 100,000 to someone, he will only receive 50,000-75,000. pros: prevents newbies from simply buying everything with money they didn't earn. suppresses inflation. suppresses trade-killing. suppresses bouncing money in between accounts. cons: can be annoying (and devastating) for honest poor people trying to help each other out monetarily